Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) Party/Parties appear in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.
(2.) The points urged by Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/Upa Pradhan of the local Panchayat in issue are as follows: (a) the Notice of 'No Confidence Motion' is not in terms of Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (for short the 1973 Act). From the two notices, both dated 10th January, 2018, it transpires that they are not identical. (b) Second, the notice of 'No Confidence Motion' is stigmatic since the requisitionists have been derogatory of the performance of the petitioner as the Upa Pradhan. Mr. Lahiri points out that in view of the public expression of the alleged stigma, it was incumbent upon the Prescribed Authority (PA)/Block Development Officer (BDO) to first grant the petitioner the opportunity to rebut the same prior to convening the 'no-confidence' motion. (c) A final point is sought to be belatedly taken by Mr. Lahiri through oral arguments that the notice of motion does not fulfil the time criteria required by statute. (d) On behalf of the State Respondents/PA, Mr. Halder, learned Senior Counsel, argues that the two notices have been sent by a majority of the members acting as requisitionists strictly in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Act.
(3.) The mode of despatch/delivery are in consonance with the statutory mandate and the signatories of the requisitionists are the same. Relying on the authority of In Re: Gopal Kumar reported in (2015) 1 CHN (Cal) 445 , Mr. Halder submits that since the Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court upheld the view that the satisfaction of the PA is implicit/underscored from the act of sending the notice itself, in a democratic process the test of the so called stigma ought to be decided on the floor of the GP itself.;